Miscellaneous Appeal No. 541 of 2012. Case: Bhola Kumar Vs Seema Devi. Patna High Court

Case Number:Miscellaneous Appeal No. 541 of 2012
Party Name:Bhola Kumar Vs Seema Devi
Counsel:For Appellant: Birendra Singh and Ram Sevak Choudhary, Advs.
Judges:I.A. Ansari and Chakradhari Sharan Singh, JJ.
Issue:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLI Rule 11; Constitution Of India - Article 142; Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 15, 9; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13, 13(1)(i), 15, 23(2), 3(1)(i)(i-a)(sic); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 498A
Citation:AIR 2015 Pat 119
Judgement Date:April 17, 2015
Court:Patna High Court


Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

  1. This is an appeal, under S. 15 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 7th July, 2012, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger, in Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 01 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the suit on contest, the suit having arisen out of matrimonial dispute seeking, under S. 3(1)(i)(i-a)(sic) 13(1)(i), (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a decree of divorce. The appellant-husband herein was the petitioner before the Court below. The matter has been placed for hearing under O. 41, R. 11 of the C.P.C. and is being disposed of, finally, at this stage itself.

  2. From the impugned judgment and decree, it would appear that the appellant and respondent were married as per Hindu rites and customs on 12-5-2003. In his petition, seeking divorce under S. 3(1)(i)(i-a)(sic) 13(1)(i), (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the applicant alleged that the behavior of respondent-wife, from the very first day of their marriage, had been quite abnormal and despite the appellant's best efforts, the respondent did not mend her ways. He alleged that he suspected that the respondent had been having and maintaining illicit relationship with many persons and despite the fact that the appellant had no sexual contact with the respondent since March, 2007, their last cohabitation being on 16-2-2007, he learnt that respondent-wife was carrying pregnancy of 5 to 6 months. It further transpires from the order under appeal that the appellant further alleged that the respondent had earlier refused to come back to matrimonial home and, thus, deserted the petitioner.

  3. It would further appear, from the order under appeal, that the respondent, while contesting the suit, denied the allegation of cruelty as well as her illicit relationship with any person and asserted that non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry, made by the husband-appellant and his near relatives, was the reason behind institution of the matrimonial suit. She denied that she had illicit relationship with any person.

  4. On the basis of rival pleadings, following three issues were framed by the learned Court below:--

    1. "Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after marriage?

    2. Whether the respondent is living in adultery?

    3. Relief."

  5. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings before the Family Court. The appellant examined, in his favour, four witnesses, who included his father (P.W.-1), Mother (P.W.-2), Uncle (P.W.-3) and the appellant (P.W.-4) himself. The mother of the respondent and the respondent herself...

To continue reading